tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN April 16, 2014 7:30am-9:31am EDT
the questions as hard as you want. please line up in order of the fashion and i will sign as many books as i can and have pictures taken as well. people are going to line up and we have microphones in the audience so here is your chance to talk about that. come gone up. >> i was wondering how far reaching you think the effect of fukushima are going to be on japan and the hawaiian islands and the rest of the pacific. >> the question is fukushima. how long will we experience the agony of three simultaneous meltdowns in northern japan? we have the answer. 40 years. according to the utility tokyo electric it will take about 40 years to begin to process dismantling the reactor. and the accident is not over at
all. a small earthquake will cause the accident starting over again. you realize the reactors so radioactive workers cannot even get in for more than a few minutes at a time. they sent in robots. robots are not smart enough to wiccan high radiation fields, total failure. at the pentagon the u.s. pentagon made it a priority to create robots that can use a hammer, robots that can use a saw. we don't have those robots yet. so the next thing they are going to do is to ensure cameras into the water to see where the melting is. we don't even have a picture. we don't even have a picture of the melted core. we know it is 100% melted. and the water. the radioactive water builds up.
swimming pools when you visit fukushima you see all these swimming pools of radioactive water. the agony is unending. just remember that it will take 40 years to clean up that nuclear accident. japan after world war ii made a faustian bargain. faust was the legendary figure whose sole was sold to the double for unlimited power. japan says if we go nuclear we will have no oil or coal but there's a price you have to pay and that is you sell your soul to the devil. let's move on to other questions you may have. go to the next person. >> i wanted to thank you for coming by to kansas city and i wanted to ask you have been such an inspiration on the fact that you started at such a young age wanting to be a scientist. of all the people you have met
in different fields do you find that being the standard about everyone starting very young or do you see someone that came in at an older age wanting to switch into a field of science? >> you start being interested in science when you are very young, you can be interested in science at any age but it does help to the young. i interviewed 500 scientists in my time for bbc television, science channel. i have my own radio show which goes to 130 radio stations across the u.s. every weekend and i always ask the question, when did it start? when did you get interested in science and they always say the same thing. when i was 10. when i was 10 there was a telescope, a microscope, a chemistry kit, a visit to the planetarium, and astronomy book, something said the law. before 10 everything is mommy
and daddy. after 10 kids begin to ask what is beyond mommy and daddy and then we get the existential shocked, the epiphany, realizing how huge and glorious and splinters the universe is and kids just eat it up. they want to know everything about physics and chemistry, why the sun shines, they want to know everything and then they hit 15 and it is all over. what is the greatest destroyer of scientists known to science? the greatest destroyer of scientists is junior high school. you see, we are all born scientists. we are born wondering where did i come from? why does the sun shine? why do the stars twinkle? we are born that way until we hit junior high school.
then it is crushed out of us. we have to memorize useless facts, figures that don't amount to anything. we are called nerd's by our friends. it is hard to get a date. the hormones are kicking in. it is difficult and in high school you have this fear that you have the beautiful people on top, the cheerleaders and the jocks, nothing against them but there's a pyramidion high school immortalized by hollywood movies but hollywood never tells you that as soon as you graduate from high school that pyramid turns upside down. they never tell you that. [applause] >> look at bill gates, steve jobs, mr. zuckerburg, billionaires', leaders and innovation in technology, they were at the bottom of the pyramid when they were in high
school. >> thank you, very nice. i was wondering, you mentioned you could take a chip with someone's memory and insert it back into the rack so they could remember it again. it may be that someone's memories inserted to another person's brain so there is controversy over doing something like this because memories are personal and meant to be a single person. how will the public respond and how do you think of this new technology? >> what are the ethical implications of being able to insert not just plead to memories but false memories, courses you never took, dates you never had, vacations you never experienced could all be uploaded, we think, in the future. there are big ethical considerations because what happens if a criminal gets this and upload the memory of a crime you never committed?
our legal justice system depends upon eyewitness accounts. we have a witnesses to say they will tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth but what happens if you can tamper with people's memories? eyewitness accounts could not be trusted any more. i think this has to be regulated. if we get to the point where we can insert memories into the mind they have to be labeled. that this memory is false. this vacation you never had. it is fun anyway so i will pay money and experience a vacation so we have to regulate it to make sure false memories are clearly labeled false memories so you don't confuse what is real and what is false and for people who worry about security, some people think in the future of cia agents will record your memories from a distance. that is not going to happen because in order to tap into the
mind you have to put a probe either directly on top of the brain or put a helmet on top of the brain. further away, the radius signals are so bad it is less than background. you have to be right up to the person's brain in order to record things so the problem is not privacy because someone will record your memories. the problem is you may willingly make a memory that is recorded but somebody else sold it. you have to make sure your memories are kept private so that is another area which will play out in the years but remember, right now we can only record one memory at a time but in the future memories may have to be regulated like software.
next? [inaudible] >> you were talking about -- [inaudible] >> first of all the question is about asbergers and how but brain is wired at. we think it is a mild form of autism. a certain fraction of people with autism begin to develop these enormous mathematical, artistic abilities. not all autistic children but a good fraction of them begin -- in certain directions. they may be, quote, mentally
retarded, defined institutions. how is that possible? the new thinking is it is damage to the left temporal lobe that creates these. the damage could occur from a blow to the head or damage from autism. we now believe autism is not the only way to have these mathematical powers. people with asbergers have these mathematical powers without having to have a low iq. they are functional. they were functional in society. newton was a member of parliament during his lifetime. we are beginning to understand that autism and other behavior, are not inevitably linked. it may be possible to induce this behavior and asberger's is a form that you can control and
function in society with asberger's and have these mathematical powers. one study last year at silicon valley, many silicon valley engineers have a higher rate of asbergers than the average population but you knew that already watching the big bank theory. some people a clueless when it comes to women. this is something we are still investigating. we have a long ways to go, so we fully understand autism and asbergers, we can see it is different from the average. >> i was curious as to your thoughts on this subject of quantum consciousness and how it is related to theoretical physics. >> there is in my book i have a chapter on quantum consciousness which is the most bizarre form
of consciousness in all of science. according to quantum theory in order for something to exist somebody has to look at it, make an observation. before you observe something in principle it could exist in all possible states. when you look at it it assumes one state. there for the observer in some sense determines existence. observation requires consciousness. conscious people make the observation so the greatest paradox in all of science is the cat problem, if i have a cast in a box and i don't open the box the cash could be either dead or alive. how do we describe a cat that
you cannot observe? we at the dead cat to the live cat, at the two waves to get this so the cat is neither dead nor alive until you open the box. einstein thought this stupid. how can you be neither dead nor all live at the same time? what can i say? einstein was wrong. and electron can be spin a poor spin down, here or is there at the same time. this is the greatest paradox in all of science. how do you resolve the fact that you can have dead cats and live cats simultaneously exist in a net their state before you make the observation and if you ever find a solution to this puzzle, tell me first. nobel prize winners debate this question.
there is an alternative. the alternative vision is that the universe splits in half. in one you never is the catch is dead. in the other universe the catch is a lively universes keep splitting into other universes and that theory seems to be the one preferred by spin series. this lends us to the last question and the last question is is elvis presley still alive in another parallel universe? the answer is possibly yes. if this theory is correct and the universe splits, then perhaps in one universe the king is still alive. one last question because i have to get to signing your books and have to get photographs, and one last question. >> my question was if you could
put someone's thoughts onto disk could you build the more robot body and live out their dives -- there lives a robot body? >> if you could put the mind onto a disk, the question is can that disk you put into a robot and then you would have super powers? this is something that cannot be ruled out. if one day, this is far in the future, we put all our path way is of the brain onto a disk and put this disk into a robot the robot could be perfect. the robot could be handsome, gorgeous, beautiful, superhuman with the powers of the cyborg and look just like us except have superpowers. this is something that cannot be ruled out. this is called homo su.. i should point out the most superior is hundred years away. we will not see that in our lifetime but it is something you
cannot rule out, the fact that maybe these surrogates will live our life as surrogates and that is what the movie surrogates' starring bruce willis was all about. in that world people preferred to live in superhuman bodies, didn't want to go back to being human anymore. they preferred to be supera few and and because it was a hollywood movie bruce willis mess is it all up and turns of all document -- supers of the human body that an end. thank you so much for being here today. what i want to do now is sign your books. you have been a great audience, thank you so much. [applause] >> tonight booktv focusing on navy seals. at 8:00 p.m. like woodland on his book training k-9 warriors looking at the dogs to serve with navy seals.
johnny walker and jim defelice talks about the iraqi who risked everything to fight with the navy seals. the author of ice on target, inside stories from the brotherhood of the u.s. navy seals. booktv in prime time all this week on c-span2 starting at 8:00 p.m.. coming up on c-span2 this morning a discussion on the future of internet governance followed by former reagan adviser susanna massey on the history of u.s./russia relations. from the fifth annual women in the world summit firsthand stories of bombing and chemical attacks in syria. here is a look. >> we were placed, bringing
activities to the kids, working with them. we heard on the internet -- after an hour we here at a similar attack hit my count. we were hitting the missiles, the bombing organized and organized the bombings this night, different from any other night before gathering so after half an hour we start feeling dizzy. our eyes were running so there is something different in the air and we wake up with a family member and the kids, we try to help them to put some kind of
scarves on their noses and then we decided -- >> throats burning and eyes burning at this point? >> yes. our noses were running. we had some difficulties breeding. we didn't imagine it would be worse. we decided to go to the hospital to help because we use to the nurses at the hospital so we went to the hospital and tried to help. on our way, took us five minutes to get there but because of the bombing and shelling it took 20 minutes. i remember when we arrived at that neighborhood i saw dozens of corpses still women and men
and children, i remember myself cleaning and saying oh god, i was so shocked. i didn't imagine seeing that. >> tonight the fifth annual women in the world summit from lincoln center in new york city at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> there is an old saying that victory has a hundred and defeat is an orphan. i would not be surprised if information is in the un with regard to recent activities. >> just talking about the fact the interrogation last week of the stannous committee, senator goldwater had some questions about the use of the carrier aircraft from the carrier essex with markings painted out. we figure somebody overs there has told him about that thing on
wednesday morning and therefore they will spring it or goldwater will spring it and try to spring it in such a way that you were wrong and i was wrong in saying there wasn't. >> historic audio from the aftermath of the attempt to overthrow fidel castro at 6:00 p.m. on c-span radio in washington d.c. 90.1 at them, on line at c-span.org and nationwide on channel 120. >> in march the commerce department national telecommunications and information administration announced plans to transfer leadership of the domain name system to the global community. next the hudson institute hosts the discussion on the future of internet governance. it is an hour and 15 minutes. >> good morning. i am harold furchtgott-roth, your moderator today. welcome to the center for the
economics of the internet at the hudson institute. the greatness of america can be measured in many ways. one of those ways is when innovations which happen often in the united states we often share those with the world whether it is global positioning services or the internet itself. the other part of the greatness of america is the discussion of major issues, issues that are decided not just at the top but discussed broadly throughout the united states, one of the issues that has been occasionally mentioned in the press has been the future of internet governance. if you want to know about the future of internet governance, i think today we have here some of the people you would most want to hear about that from.
we are going to have an informal discussion of. this is, imagine if you can we are sitting in someone's living room in washington on a fine spring day and you have an opportunity to bend your year end hear from some people who know about the future of internet governance. let me introduce our panel today. on or far left is ambassador danny sepulveda, he heads up american international telecommunications policy at the state department. he has to lend us from a flight from dubai, just arrived early this morning and we are pleased to have him with us. sitting next to me on your left
is the president and ceo of icann, fadi chehade. it has been mentioned in the media about internet governance. we are very pleased to have fadi chehade with us. he will be taking off later today for many other countries around the world. on my other side is lawrence strickling, assistant secretary of commerce and head of the national telecommunications information administration. lawrence strickling heads up the government's telecommunications policy. >> i have no travel plans. >> sitting next to lawrence strickling is my colleague robert mcdowell at the center for economic of the internet, former commissioner of the
federal communications commission and someone who has been deeply involved in internet governance issues over the years. i would like to begin with just some of the background about icann, how it is organized. almost a chicken and egg question, which came first, the internet or icann. fadi chehade, please tell us about icann. >> thank you for inviting us to this open-minded conversation. icann came after the internet. at some point in the evolution of the internet, 16 years ago. it became clear we need to organize, coordinate the court
identifiers that underpin the technical infrastructure of the internet. these identifiers are unique in that they make the internet one internet. as you know the internet is tens of thousands of networks that are linked together. what makes them appear as the internet is that there are unique identifiers that identify various parts connected to it. icann coordinate and manages these identifiers are working, they are stable, secure so when you type the website name you always get the web site you want to go to war when you connect to the internet with a device it has a unique ip number that connects to. 15, 16 years ago the u.s. government created icann, a great vision i mentioned the other day. we think of the internet as a great american invention and it is, equally important american intervention is the multistate
older model that underpins the government of the internet. is a level that is unique, looks like the internet itself. it is decentralized model governing the internet, difficult to capture just like the internet. everything in the icann structure was designed brilliantly from the beginning to ensure all the stakeholders can participate equally, to build the policy and manage this unique identifier that i mentioned which out risk of capture. icann has done its job very well for 15 years. we haven't unblemished record of a stable set of registry that underpin the internet. that is what icann does today and will continue to do in the future. >> lawrence strickling, tell us
about the current relationship between the department of commerce and icann. >> thank you. i would like to join with fadi chehade in thinking that you for organizing this conversation. it is good that we can talk about what is happening and clear up misconceptions about the announcement and implications of it. so currently the united states has a very important relationship with icann and it is multifaceted. one aspect that has been the subject of so much press the last couple weeks is in our role in terms of a current contract will relationship under which it performs these what are calledv iana functions that fadi chehade just described. the united states is an important participant in the process, governments have a role
as a set of stakeholders in the policymaking and participate as a member of the governmental advisory committee which is the group by which governments are able to present consensus public policy advice to the icann board but even beyond that is another relationship we have with icann through our affirmation of commitments icann signed with us in 2009 under which icann has committed to the international internet community various things in regards to its accountability and transparency to that community and other matters set forth in that document. under that document there are a set of review teams that operate on a regular basis the most important of which is the accountability and transparency review team that has gone through two cycles of work. i have a seat on the fact team
by virtue of affirmation of commitments and participated in 2010 and last year. in terms of overall review of accountability and transparency of icann to its community and we made a series of recommendations, icann adopted in 2011 we gave the report card last year with the second report and made additional recommendations the board is evaluating. fadi chehade mention the multistate older model of governance, very important one in terms of what has led to growth and innovation and the internet but to succeed there has to be a strong commitment from the top down in these organizations to be accountable and transparent to the stakeholder community as a way to build legitimacy and validity of work of these organizations so we have taken our role in these teams very seriously to the point where i have
personally spent many hours on these issues with respect -- has been an important part of our relationship in addition to the narrow specifics contract. that we made an announcement about three weeks ago. >> from standing documents for icann and understanding or contract can be found at the icann web site. ..
prior to our announcement on the functions three b.c. was the affirmation of commitment in 2009. what that set the stage for was much more of an internationalization of icann in a sense rather than any continued since that the united states provide some sort of oversight of the operations of icann, it was a much expanded to include the community at large. these review teams in effect are not a major way in which the committee can provide its input and oversight to icann. those committees that have operated since 2009 have been very international. they have had representatives from around the world. this most recent accountability team that operated in 2013 had
representatives, just government representatives from denmark, australia, china, costa rica. they were all members of the team as well as other international representatives from other constituency groups inside icann. i think that was a very important part of the evolution of icann back in 2009. >> could you tell our audience about the administration's proposal, and perhaps the ambassador could comment on that as well? the background on their propos proposal, what led to the announcement a few weeks ago? >> so three weeks ago we announced our intention to transition our role with the and the functions contract to the global internet community. and in doing so we asked icann as the contracting party to convene the global internet community to come forward and
develop the plan for the transition. nothing will change until the plan is developed side note there was immediate concern that some our relationship had changed at that time. nothing is change. it will be status quo as this process moves forward. in making this request we set some conditions around the transition and a plan that would need to be brought forward to us. we said any plan need to respect the multi-stakeholder process. it needed to preserve the security and stability and resilience the of the internet. it needed to meet the needs of the customers and partners of the iana functions and need to preserve the openness of the internet. we made it crystal clear we would not accept a replacement for the united states that would be government lead or be intergovernmental organization. we made that express right from the outset of all of this.
in asking icann to convene the community, icann immediately in the week, with its meeting in singapore, did convene to large public sessions as well as a large number of other conversations within the individual supporting organizations and advisory committee as to how to organize the community to move forward to develop a transition plan. the first task has been how to develop a process to develop a plan. in doing so we have made it very clear in our announcement we wanted the other in the technical organizations, the internet society, the engineering task force, the internet architecture board, the regional internet registry to also a major leadership roles in this process. we weren't asking just thank you to come back with a plan that we wanted to attend to convene the entire community to do this. i think that was accomplished at least the first phase of this by the sessions that were held in singapore.
but what we're expecting and i'm sure tran one can speak to this more directly because -- turn one -- will be for something this process going forward. but we expected them to come together and organize itself to develop a plan that meets the conditions we put out and present to us a consensus plan at some point when the work is completed. we have noted that the existing contract expires at the and of september 2015. we did not intend that to be a deadline, after which bad things would happen. there's been some misapprehension about the idea that we're trying to impose a deadline on this process and we were. we were simply noting that, and, of course, any work string ought to some sort of schedule attached to it and that seemed be a good target date for the community to look too. but the fact is the contract can continue on after next september. we have the ability to extend it right exercising options of up
to four years in installments. the community will have plenty of time to develop consensus proposal that meets the conditions we've laid out. >> ambassador, which elected described how the administration has looked at this and what some of the reactions have been from other countries around the world? >> of course, thank you. i give much credit to larry strickling in taking initiative to take this move and move it forward. in large part because as an wants it, 1990 when we transferred the kind government transferred its ability to icann there were 400,000 people in the world were on the internet, were connected to each other over the internet. to date our 2.7 million. it is our policy and gold to connect the rest of the world to this platform as well. if you're going to have a global
platform it requires a global consensus on the underlying infrastructure. and to that effect one of the things that this has done is move not only towards us in a stronger fashion, those democratic governments that already supported as. you saw the uk and australia and others put a strong support for this decision, you also see governments that were undecided. you see the bristles of the world, saudi african union put out a statement for support. was actually done is shifted the conversation from one where people were wondering what is the future of internet governance structure going to be? is it going to be multilateral? swing states like brazil and countries in africa and others were leaning towards the views of some authoritarian states. or is going to be multi-stakeholder the way america wants it to be. this is fundamental shifted that conversation towards our point of view.
that of the multi-stakeholder system. it's brought more people into the fold to think about how that system is going to evolve in such a way they can win not just global acceptance of global involvement, global embrace. and so i can tell you the conversations that i've had just been to buy but intergovernmental organization since the announcement, are different than before that. there's an understanding america is open, america is truly committed to the multi-stakeholder system and believes, really believes in the bottom-up structure. what he believes the idea the engineers, firms, users, activists, academics, and governments for all stakeholders in the underlying infrastructure in the future of the internet can work together to fulfill the underlying goals of what is a global key negations infrastructure that truly reflects not just our values but our human values of greater
democratic participation and economic and social development. >> commissioner mcdowell, this announcement has met with some hesitation, skepticism from some quarters, especially on captive coal -- especially on capitol hill. could you describe the reaction of some people to get ministrations announcement? and what's been taking place on capitol hill recently? >> sure. and first of all i want to congratulate you on assembling this panel. this has got to be the place right now for the discussion of this topic, the trifecta of big guns that you brought in while i was on vacation in italy with my family last week. >> meeting with higher authorities. >> looking for extra help. know, but what i think really needs is i should go on vacation to italy with my family more often and you can pull these
things off very quickly. might do that. but this is quite a to for the hudson center, hudson institute center for the economic internet, and i do want to thank the three officials other than the former commissioners who are here as well, my colleagues, for coming here straight from the airport on the way to the airport, waiting for the next airport itinerary to come your way. these three gentlemen live in aluminum tubes at 35,000 feet for the most part. so thank you for finding this brief moment together to talk about is very, very important issue. as i said in my blog post not long after the announcement, this is a complex issue. it is nuanced. i cautioned people at the time from acting reflectively or impulsively in any reaction to it. there's a lot of history here. there are a lot of functions,
and words about. i want to talk about words today. i also want to operate from the jeopardy school of doing a panel, which is some of my statements might be in the form of a question. i have lots of questions. i've reviewed the senate letters that came out this week in which i thought had a lot of very thoughtful questions, some of which secretary strickland has already started to answer. but this is a great preview. we get a chance to hear before the senate does of what some the answers to the questions might be. just between you me and everyone watching on c-span, and all the press in the room. but when we talk about multi-stakeholder, historically there's been no government. is the nonprofit private sector groups. so the groups that larry mentioned, the internet engineeriengineeri ng task force, internet architecture board, the internet society can does not comprise of
governments. government certainly show up to meetings with their concerns, they are not excluded. they have a seat at the table but they don't own the table. so in my view multi-stakeholder is a means that governments are not involved in terms of actually making the final decision. they don't have the power of law. they don't have the power of international treaty of international law. i think that's important we are other terms, variety levels of understanding. other terms like multilateral gets confused with multi-stakeholder. multilateral in -- means government, international can mean government. you have to be careful when you use the term. there are tons of art that have been used for years. and so words here are very, very important and i'm not trying to parse words i think we need to look very carefully at some of
the words that are used. the are a lot of concerns. one is the affirmation of commitments that larry talk about. can you be or will they be obligated by treaty in the future? so once this court is snipped, and by the way, i'm all for privatization. i'm all for the internet my great further and further away from government interference. that last little tether, one of the questions is who can grab on to that tether? will it be of the government's? will it be government influencing things? wavered one of the conditions will be nothing would be government lead. what about government influence? who would be on the icann board? how would icann be influenced? there's a government advisory committee within the icann. what would its future will be? as we go down the road we have seen, 2012 world conference on
international telecommunications, for the first time in its context the international telecommunication union, a treaty-based organization. we saw a move away from operating by consensus or majority vote. that's huge, very important. is that going to be the future of internet governance, or will it be consensus? and will it be consensus without governments voting? these are important questions. also what is the time from? letter he mentioned the contract has, it's up in september the 2015 but it two-year terms after that. i've heard they are automatic renewables will not be talking until 2019. but from what you just said, it's not message was automatically renewable. >> they can exercise the option.
>> has that ability. so what about the idea some sort of revocable trust, something i'm proposing can which should government become involved, there's a release of this, more of a multi-stakeholder, non-governmental multi-stakeholder global committee the way we have with the iab and internet architecture board. but should something go wrong should the government influence in the future and is pulled by? one question i think with the global pill i'm working with, fadi and many other wonderful luminaries, i'm not quite sure it ended up on that panel, under one who who doesn't quite fit, but internet luminaries is, it's just the accountability when something goes wrong, historically really nothing happens -- nothing has gone wrong and normally i'm an optimist but am also half irish. i believe in murphy's law.
what is the rule of law? how is it resolve? what is the process? how do we resolve these conflicts if something goes wrong? >> so the developments in turkey the last couple of weeks are troubling. turkey, and please correct me if i'm wrong, by the way do we have a hashtag or twitter bashing is just at hudson institute for people -- >> at hudson institute. >> want to give that a plug. my first time in front of these new green wallpaper. it used to be blue. >> we are trying to be green. >> literally. kermit the frog said it's not easy being green. but today we are. what can we learn from a tricky experience where it was a state created national? so what does that tell us about technical abilities?
i have a lot of questions and others are asking questions. i think they are all legitimate questions. i want to congratulate larry for launching the process and making it transparent. we know it will go on for a while. these complicated things tend to take longer than we expect. but i'm delighted to hear at hudson institute where the first crack outside of congress of talking to you all. >> let me turn first to fadi and rob s. t. that several questions about the governance of icann itself. i'm sure yo you're hearing these questions all the time. please tell us icann's view of how this might play out. >> let me be clear on a few things regarding the
announcement of ndaa and then i'll talk about icann. let there be no question that icann itself is not rushing this process but we do not want to rush this process to want to get it right. we have one chance of getting this right. so the fact that there is talk of a deadline, it's nonsense. there is no deadline. the u.s. government has many years on this subject. we were moved in a very calm, and judicious way with the community through that process. he can as we know if we come back with the wrong proposal that does not fit with a clearly defined guidelines of ntia, it will be dead on arrival. as it should be. in fact, i would not bring a proposal to larry that does not meet these guidelines. because it hurts icann, the internet. it doesn't serve anyone. so i want to assure everyone that we are completely aligned
with ntia on the importance of doing this in a very measured way. all we are doing it is starting a very good process of discussion. we couldn't even tell our community when we met them in singapore any framework. we agreed, we literally sat as we're sitting here, spend hours having people come up and tell us their ideas. a genius is that it sorts itself out because everyone has a voice at the table. and now we're just listening to people not on the substance of the proposal we will send and we're just at the stages and how do we do at? it? how do we get organized? who meets? how often do we meet? how often do we report? so this is all about process and we will take our time. there's no rush. it is important also to note that along with the public
consultation we started on responding to ntia's request for proposal, on the same day in singapore we started a second public consultation aimed squarely at how do we make sure icann itself, an organization, remains accountable through this transition and beyond this transition through its commitment to? because we need to make sure that neither icann on its own into changing its constitution and being something it is not today, does not figure to the core principles we believe in. board that there is an external force on icann that capture some of the mechanisms that make icann what it is. so we are having that conversation as well. it is extremely important that frankly many of you here and many of the people watching us understand that we have a public process to assure everyone that
icann will remain accountable. what does that mean? it means we ensure that anyone involved in the icann affairs as clear mechanisms to watch what we are doing, so full transparency. to give us accountable through mechanisms may be like reviews, external independent audits, and mechanismmechanism s of redress that when people feel we are not making decisions according to our processes, that they have a mechanism to go and get redress and appeals. these are important discussions that we're having right now at icann. i do that these discussions are very complementary to the discussion of responding to ntia's request for a proposal on how we replace the current role in the stewardship of our functions. these need to happen to a need
to happen parallel and in need of a timeline that is similar. because once the u.s. government does the right thing, you heard from ambassador spoke very eloquently about the immediate value and are already getting as a global kindred and as the country. so we need to continue these two things, but as this value increases, as we strengthen our role as a global leader, we need to make sure that we managed these tracks together and we get to the result before the united states steps away from its unique involvement today. before. i insist we will not let go of this important role the u.s. has played before we are all comfortable that both the transition will happen smoothly without risk of capture or security to the internet, and
that icann will be accountable under every possible scenario. chairman walden spoke about stress tests and scenarios to icann. we will put together the whole framework of stress tests. we will study every possibility that could come at us in the future and ensure that we strengthen our accountability mechanisms. one less thing on this. a lot of people say the role of the united states has been symbolic. so what if ntia steps away from that role? but symbolism is very important. yes, it may be symbolic and india he has no role in what we do, it's true. we do our functions without the involvement operationally, but symbolism to the world has allowed the multi-stakeholder model to survive and become very successful. so the symbolism once we remove
it has to be replaced with clear strategy and clear safeguards. we will be at the forefront of making sure these are in place. >> i just a jump in because i want to make a clear. we are not going anywhere near or far away from this as perhaps you are thinking these on the discussion so far. all we have put into play here is that very specific role we play with the iana functions contractor interns will we actually do, all we do is serve as a check on the accuracy of changes to the file menu to our first an and a policy as develod at icann through its existing older stakeholder processes. that may then lead to something, a change being administered by the iana organization at icann but it comes to us but would look at over. it's largely a clerical task. verify its accuracy and we send
it on to their assigned who does the maintenance of the root zone file but all we have said we're going to do is we need to step out at that particular aspect of this, at which point there's no longer a need for us to the contract with icann to have it perform the iana functions. we are not going anywhere with respect to our role in ensuring the accountability and transparency of icann. we're not going anywhere with respect to our role to engage with other governments through the governmental advisory committee on the public policy aspects of icann operations. so it's not as if we're closing up shop and saying we are done. would talk about something very narrow, very specific and is largely going to be i think addressed existing customers of the iana functions in terms of whether there even needs to be a replacement for that particular function we perform. frankly, maybe it can be done regime to machine and no replacement for that aspect of
this needs to be developed. what has happened though, and transport reference this, it has led to these questions being asked that have always been in existence about icann but there in existence of the time we did the affirmation of commitments which is to whom is icann accountable? how does one enforce the accountability commitments? and so we are currently operating under the affirmation of commitments, and it is important that to the extent out announcement is now going to lead to renewed action and energy and engagement of everyone to come back and refocus on this question, that's a good thing. but it is not what we've actually keyed up in terms of enough that we made three weeks ago. there's been something of a merging of these issues and questions, almost metaphysical questions about icann and whom it's responsible to that is always existed in the
organization added now come back to the surface as a result of our announcement. they are important questions. they need to be discussed the we will participate in those discussions because we of the state in the outcome of that, but it is not something that somehow we've created some vacuum by virtue of our announcement because that's just not the case. all it's done is refocused attention on questions that have always existed about the organization. >> if i may also, when secretary strickling says we can h use speaking opposite about u.s. government and ntia. but though we should be clear to everyone, it's much broader than that. every major american company is at icann. there at the table. verizon, at&t, facebook, google, and the list goes on. they are all engaged. they have been engaged for years and they will remain engaged. our civil society institutions, our center, they are all there at the table.
what the role of ntia and u.s. government and state department is critically important but as larry said, must remain calm and we trust it will remain and it should remain. we should also strengthen the presence of our own businesses and their own institutions. i just appointed a full-time senior executive at icann focus only on bringing business, more businesses to the table. we are very keen in making sure the voice of the private sector is there. >> ambassador sepulveda, you've heard many of the concerns expressed on capital and media and elsewhere. how do you view some of the concerns? are there some that fit in the category of this reflects not an understanding -- either some
usage of the core issues we need to be focused on going forward? >> having worked on capitol hill for a long time, when of a big decision like this is announced, everybody sort of processes it and gives the first got him pressure. from the first got the impression you for a number of expressions of concerns about some the things commissioner mcdowell talked about in terms of what is the worst-case scenario and how can we avoid it. it's a fair question. i think the underlying issue, when the secretary was in the senate and the worked on the legislation that was passed unanimously in both bodies in favor of the multi-stakeholder system. we are united with our colleges across the aisle in ensuring that the preservation of the freedom and preservation of the multi-stakeholder system. the first question that is asked is how are you going to keep icann from being taken over by government? and the fact of the matter is that icann is not the u.n.
icann is an organization that is structure set up to not allow anyone stakeholder to take over the system. governments can no more takeover of icann and google can take over icann, or a single academic or an engineer can take over icann. if we need to look at the structure to ensure that the proper mechanisms in place and i think that's part of the process going on now checks and balances and accountability, that's clearly, those are all perfectly valid questions. i think we will be working in briefing they'll regularly on how the process that icann is convening bring the stakeholders together will answer those questions and ensure that proper protections are in place. ultimately, i think at the end of the day we're all going to be in place where we should be in place that there would be a united american decision to support, or what should be a pragmatic solution to the
challenge. >> commissioner, can we talk a little bit about process? is there a sense that people on capitol hill were surprised by the announcement, or is there a sense that this is really just sort of the first step and no final decision has been made and this will go on over a period of years and so this is just an announcement of a process? what's your sense of how this is being perceived in terms of the process here? >> because it's complex and nuanced i think a tendency especially in the mainstream press is to oversimplify it. as with many things regarding the internet. but given the fact that secretary strickling, ambassador
sepulveda and fadi have been saying it's going to be a long process, a couple of years at least it sounds like, i think the more it's talked about and as key policymakers get more educated on this, they will start to understand a little bit more. i'm not saying they will start to buy-in to the plan, i'm actually, it was encouraged by ambassador sepulveda's remarks just now that you would prefer to have consensus here at home before the plan is adopted. that's one of the questions i had it but there are a lot of moving parts to all of us. but i think they are legitimate questions. i think the senate letter for instance, have a lot of terrific questions any. i'd love to drill down what fadi was saying, or maybe it was ambassador sepulveda, about the structure of icann and how it can't be controlled by the government or a company, or an
academic or any single entity. how does that work? what is the structure? who avoids the icann board? what would that look like going forward? if we could drill down on that, what guarantees are there? how does that work? how can it not be subsumed somehow, or its functions abrogated by treaty on the majority vote? >> you need to understand exactly the icann board does because it's not a typical board in terms of setting policy. it's job is to acknowledge that consensus policy has been developed by the multi-stakeholder community. so even in that regard, with the board does is somewhat limited compared to a corporate board. but with that caveat i think fadi can go ahead and respond to the other part of your question. >> and i acknowledged that my boss, the chairman of the board
is here in the audience, doctor crocker, good to have you. >> doctor crocker was a guest here at the center just last year. good to see you again. >> this is an important question. i served many boards over the years. this is probably one of the toughest boards i've served. because it's not typical. it's truly a community board. we have 16 board members and multiple, several additional liaison board members who participate in the discussion. they cannot vote. but of the 16 board members, 10 our elected through the community. for example, one young lady who was just elected to the board. she will start in september. it took a year almost about process to happen through our immunity but she represents the
community that has 160 user chapters around the world. when all of this bubbles up at the top, we end up with all of them picking one board member. it's very hard to capture that kind of process with 160 chapters in 100 countries all over the world leading up to that one board member. and then you could draw that process for every board member. the nonprofits select someone, so what's up with. they we have an independent nominating committee that selects the other six were members. the last election for example, in the executive director of the great business school in paris. you look at the level and the quality of people that are coming, and the processes by which they come come you end up with an extremely diverse board and the board that is really elected through very deep and
long processes that have their tails into the community. it is important to know that all 133 governments that icann do not have a seat on the board that is a voting seat. and they will not buy the design of icann. however, there is a chairperson they pick for the grouping which today happens to be the representative of canada. she sits on the board as an observer. she cannot vote. so it's important to appreciate when you look at a board like that and the structures of change and the election and so on, which we should engage in deep detail but it's all on our website, it becomes very difficult under any scenario for the board to be captured. and, finally, it's important to note that we are a california corporation. we operate under u.s. law.
california law. our board is responsible to these laws. and so as larry said, our board does not make policy decisions. our board's job is to ensure that the processes were followed in the multi-stakeholder model, upheld all the things we committed. we have many bodies within icann that make policies and bring advice to the board. but the decisions are made by the community. that's powerful by the way. i invite any of you here who have been to a icann meeting, it is far more fun than disneyland. should come. it's remarkable. it really is a remarkable exercise. the next meeting is in london in june, and the one after that is in los angeles. if you can't get to london, to come from but it's an exercise in the purest form of democracy. you should come, watch it. our meetings are open, free,
inclusive. being around the world live -- beamed around the world live in all languages plus portuguese. it is incredible. everything we do is unscripted on our website. we are about to announce open icann, so you can systemically go to our website and search for anything from any system. so icann is a very transparent organization. we were rated recently as one of the most transparent organizations. so there's a lot to see and to appreciate and how the system works. as i joked at the hearing on the hill the other day, i can hardly change the coffee brand in our cafeteria without somebody in the committed sign this was not a bottom-up decision and we will forward it to the ombudsman. it does happen. it's a tough community. but it's a committee that watches, thousand volunteers watch every step we make. and ensure that everything is
paramount and everybody has a voice. please come and experience it. it's quite impressive. >> i grew up in orlando so i've been both to disneyland and icann. but i want to guess the question commissioner mcdowell race which is how to keep an international treaty from either abrogating or reserving the icann's authority? that's not a new challenge. countries have been proposing to take the naming and numbering authority away from icann and give it to the united nations for many years, and what we've done as a united states is created and worked in an alliance with europe and japan and canada, and all the typical democratic actors, to ensure that doesn't happen. what our challenge is to grow that community of nations that realizes that we can have faith. we can trust in the underlying infrastructure of users, firms, activists.
who are performing an excellent function. the legitimacy system is its success. no one can deny that success. the ultimate defenders of this is not our government. it's the users and the firms and the stakeholders themselves. not just here but around the world. when i go around the world and talk to young people who are creating businesses and are starting innovative new firms, and those firms are born global on the internet, they are just as passionate about the system as any of us here on this platform are. ultimately, it's a winning message. and i think that those alliances will hold. those are two separate conversations. it would take an action of united nations to abrogate. the united states will not allow that. >> let me push back on that a little bit. i want to drill down a little bit. a treaty negotiation ended up being a majority vote.
the united states couldn't stop it. in fact, almost all of europe almost voted -- >> let me stop you there for a second. it was a treaty negotiation on which regulations were being negotiated and there was a 55 to something else split. that is not binding on the united states because we're not a signatory. the question of naming and numbering in the operations of the internet is wholly different than an international telecommunications regulation treaty. in part because the actors on in it would have to recognize the root and recognize and respect the decision of the authorities. at the end of the day, one of the things we've done because that was an anomaly. is we have recommitted ourselves and worked very hard to ensure that the organization itself understands it needs to return to consensus-based processes. we have gotten the commitment of the secretary-general.
we will fight for the commitment of any future secretary-general. >> leading up, there were proposals before, at the u.n. for the main name function to be subsumed by the itu or a separate body. specifically, i'm not making this up. it doesn't take any imagination come in black and white, people can look it up. number one. negative, the current -- >> we defeated them all. >> but barely. the momentum is going in the wrong way. the number complement them is going in the wrong way because you had a revolutionary change of a departure from consensus to majority vote to let me go back. the secretary joe, the current one you're speaking of who is not recommitted to consensus was also committed before the wicket. it didn't happen. at the wicket.
so commitments by any secretary-general, he has a few more months left in his term, and then we have a new secretary-general likely to be from china, so these are all legitimate areas of concern. the direction of the arrows are pointing in the wrong correction, not -- i agree with your culprit i just don't know if it's going to happen. >> that may respond to yes these are legitimate concerns as long as the authoritarian nations in the world to want to usurp international law. legitimate concerns. i totally disagree the idea on the trendlines but the idea that brazil in almost all of the countries, 12 country that part of the 24 country multi-stakeholder committee that is putting brazil together, of those, a significant number of them voted. they are very -- their very participation in the purcell conference i is not just a multistate cold process to set up a decision by which to move
forward, what a commitment itself from those to the multi-stakeholder process showed the trendlines are moving in the other direction. the commitment of the african union to our announcement in favor of a multi-stakeholder system for icann shows that that organization which wasn't supporting is moving in our direction. ultimately, i would say the trendlines are quite clear in our direction. that is a function of our commitment to both diplomacy and actions like the decision the assistant secretary has taken. >> i want to jump in here, too. i think the efforts, danny deserves the credit for this in terms of what he's been doing for the last two years, have really been i think to change the debate in the developing world. i think in some small way our announcement on the iana functions hopes that momentum as well, but the fact is you are now seeing brazil taking leadership in terms of expanding the multi-stakeholder model.
you are seeing the african union coalition say we support what the united states is proposing and we want to participate with other stakeholders to develop the transition proposals. so you're saying a much broader acceptance of this among the developing world that didn't really have a hard stake in the debate with the authoritarian regimes. and they are very small in number. they have no ability by themselves to affect the kind of change that people are worried about and writing editorials about. a key is are we meeting the needs of the developing world? have we expressed to them and show them the multi-stakeholder model can meet their needs? they want to grow into countries. they want to share in the economic growth and innovation that is attached itself to this. they just don't have the same level of experience with this model as the united states and other countries in the developed world have. so it's a slow process.
the efforts of gaming and the state department i think our now giving and joined the dividends that come from paying much more attention to the needs of these countries. understanding what it is that they're looking to do to bring the benefits of the internet economy into the country, and children of the multi-stakeholder model can deliver those benefits to them. and i do agree with danny that headline is very much moving our direction on that idea with the developing world spent i think we will fundamentally disagree on the trendlines and a couple of other things. also with a definition, one thing we should explore further and i know we're running out of time. but the redefinition of what is multi-stakeholder risen. there are governments they think that involves the state of the current secretary-general has said to make the internet more democratic, governments should control it. and have a stake in it. the are some very powerful
countries with lots of client states. each of which have one vote at the icu which can achieve the goals they are looking for. these are legitimate questions but i do disagree with the trendlines but also want -- >> if i can, commissioner mcdowell, i think the concerns and the alarms you are raising should keep us on our toes. we should not think that we are necessarily, we have prevailed yet. i was at the wicket with many of us here, and, frankly, at the wicket, people looking for solutions on how to solve their issues, internet government issues. and we didn't have good answers. we kept saying, all we know is they can't be solved here. if we go back for the next the conference and when they say where do we solve ask, we say not a.
how about why? not here. that's not sustainable. i agree with you. but what we've been doing which you heard from ambassador sepulveda about, has been energizing a process to show these governments that there is a way in place for them to solve internet governance issues beyond icann. icann is one part of this but there's much more that icann to be solved in a multistate cold away. the target force is not necessarily the countries at the edge that we know have the regimes and their agendas, and we're not going to change these. but let's all remember that at the wicket we had over 150 countries in the middle that were quite lost. they didn't know where to go. singapore voted with russia to approve the icann. something is wrong with that picture. why, why did these middle governments vote the wrong way?
many of them. because we didn't have good answers for them. on where to go to solve multi-stakeholder issues. we've been working on that. the fact that the president of brazil flipped completely in a position and went from making a speech at the u.n., asking the united nations to step in and address these issues within a month to announce a multi-stakeholder conference on internet governance, and invite many other mental -- middle countries lost in dubai, south africa, ghana, south korea, all these countries in the middle they didn't know where to go. they are all part of this conference. we have a glimmer of dissolution. we should support it. we shouldn't lower our guard. because we don't know what could happen. the trendlines i agree are actually starting to trend our way. the announcement of the nda
which i now i hope you see in that picture is actually helping in that trend. because when we go to governments and we tell them, the middl middle governments, im talking of the middle governments, not necessarily the edge, we tell them come along for the multi-stakeholder right. no government control, distributive and of the internet and they say yes, but the one example you have of him multi-stakeholder management called iana and icann can you say no government control but our government. it doesn't quite work to you can't say no government control but our government should control. so i think the decision of in tia is remarkably strategic in that it actually tells the world we mean what we say. we may no government control. of course, we're going to put up safeguards to ensure we don't end up in the wrong place. and i'm with you on that. but strategically and globally,
i think the u.s. government is doing the world a huge service by making that move at this time. and inviting -- you would even the president of brazil, she said after the u.s. announcement that that actually opens up the focus on them and a lot of allies, focusing this conference on a multi-stakeholder roadmap forward. i'm heading down to são paulo. we will make sure that we had in the right direction for all of us. these are all good trans and we should support them. our companies should support them. i keep calling our countries. i know we're all talk about the u.s. government what we need are private sector involved. we need that civil society involves. all of the good people that believe in an open internet, that's the moment. that's the moment.
>> this conversation has been so enlightening, i'm hesitant to switch it off for a moment. secretary strickling, do you have for the reactions to this conversation? about how you see this thing out -- playing out. >> i associate totally with danny and fadi in terms of what i think this is headed. the positive trends that are emerging and the importance of bringing focus to these larger questions of internet governance and not getting totally caught up in the immediate issues of icann and the iana functions. it's a very small piece of a larger debate that implied we're getting into today. and certainly from our perspective we are quite cognizant, as danny is, of defining the role of government
in this space. at icann itself, there has been an issue about the effectiveness of the governmental advisory committee. it does operate by consensus, and i think that's very important. i think it's also important, contrary to some positions i've seen expressed recently that governments have a seat at the table at icann to be able to provide input if you were to say that the walls up and say government is not welcome, governments can participate, cannot of april, all that does is fuel their desire to take this to an intergovernmental organization. so it's been important and certainly in the work we've done on accountability and transparency, going back to 2010, we paid a lot of attention to making sure that governments have the discipline to provide consensus advice and to clearly articulate when they were providing consensus advice. at the same time we were hard on
the board in terms of making sure that having received consensus advice from the gac, that the board would take it seriously as they require to do under the bylaws. i think that's been a major improvement in the operation of icann over the last two or three years. and i think it again has improved the credibility and the legitimacy of icann in the eyes of governments around the world because they can see that they can come to the meetings. they can express their views and they can work with other governments to provide consensus input into the process. i think that's important. it's a feature of this we're going to have to continue to look at. it will be important for governments subscribe to the final outcome of this planning process, and will need to be involved in the. so those who would say governments have no role participating in the process i think are just wrong. again, that is a much different question and saying that governments should be given the control of his at the end. that we are all opposed to. but i think one way again, rob's
comment about how nuanced and complex this is, you have to understand that governments need to be part of the process and that actually increases the chances that they don't demand to be the solution at the end of the day. >> secretary strickling, you begin by describing, we started a process and we will see how this plays out in terms of the default position is we can renew the contract if things don't move in the right direction. how will the administration decide whether we have reached the right point to move forward with transition? and what are the internal processes within the administration to make that decision? what is your sense of what you're hearing from congress about how involve they will ultimately be in the process?
>> there's a real thirst on capitol hill, and i think in all elements of the community to know what's going on, to be kept apprised of that. we certainly understand that and we will do whatever we can to make sure that not just our legislature is legislators but all parts of the government are kept informed of this as the process receipts. i think that's a key aspect of this. at the end of the day, nothing happens unless and until we get a consensus community proposal to send it to us. and at point it will have to be one that meets the conditions that we've laid out in terms of the announcement we made three weeks ago. the specifics of what process might be employed at that point in time haven't been worked out. i think it's premature to think about that, nothing happens unless and until there's a consensus, community-based proposal that addresses and satisfies the conditions that we
laid out. >> we have just a few minutes left. i'm going to open it up to the floor for some questions. we have a microphone that will be circulating. a couple microphones. i'd like the speaker to please identify themselves, and i guess where the question right over here. please identify yourself for our audience. spend good afternoon. philip corwin. a question for the ceo and i welcome comments from any other panelist. three weeks and it will be the day after the conclusion of the conference. whatever transition plan discussions take place within the icann committee there will be other discussions on broader internet government issues. my question is, i think perhaps more important than ncaa announcement is aligned in a
statement of last october of which you are a signatory in which the participants in the meeting called for the globalization of icann and iana functions towards an environment in which all stakeholders including all governments purchase made on an equal footing. and that's kind of a fundamental change. up to now icann has been private sector leadership, governments and a subordinate advisory role. if governments become equal stakeholders, wouldn't -- to questions. wouldn't that imply that some changes within the icann perhaps become more than advisory? perhaps nonvoting head of the icann becomes a voting member of the board, and maybe this is all fine but how do we guard against the natural tendency of the governments not want to be equal stakeholders but to want to be in charge of the? >> clearly a natural instinct of government is to want to be in
charge. that's not lost on any of those. i met with the vice president of a big country in latin america and said listen, the internet is very powerful. we like power. we're going to control it. i think he was the most plainspoken wonderful. i mean, he spoke about it anyway i think probably goes to the minds of many governments. so we are very aware of what governments would like to do but in that statement you just said it's very important to look at the choice of words we put. ..
must remain completely open. governments are welcome. they have an equal seat at the table to participate but the structure within icann at the time, what rules people play, these are very well defined and the test for these is huge. this is not something simple. there are very high tests and we will stress tests these things and if they require us to put on suspenders to make sure we do not find ourselves, you are right by the way, an important point is the recent meetings we had in singapore and you were in fair with us, you heard the chinese representative make the
proposals that maybe governmental advisory committee should become a public committee and asked me the question publicly and clearly that is counter to how i can absorb that so i invited him to participate like everybody else by participation in the open but does the advisory committee had an advisory role? these are important things we should talk about. >> can i add one thing? some of the concern is the idea if we think about government stakeholders' there are government stakeholders and private stakeholders' only two sets of stakeholders which give each one an immense amount of power and that is not how the stakeholder system works. government is one stakeholder but there are many others and within government teach government has equal footing to weekend every other government and governments do not act in coalition in that sense. so i think it is important to understand the structure to understand the relative risk.
>> to emphasize the governmental advisory committee mentioned many times here is consensus based body that can only produce advice, that is all they can do and consensus to get 133 countries to build consensus is not easy. when they do agree on anything it takes an enormous step for them to even come back with advice that they all agree on. that is a good thing, we should keep it this way. >> question on this side over here. the gentleman in a checkered shirt. >> thank you. peter rob with u.s. news. fadi chehade, more concerns, you talked about a los angeles based corporation governed under u.s. law. there have been numbers of stories in the international press that part of your long-term objective is to move
to geneva severing that connection. if you would like to put that to rest now that would be helpful. my larger concerns have to do with the fact that when you were in brazil president of brazil seems to be taking the position to try to organize the non-aligned stakeholders, if you think of the way the chinese triad to organize the non-aligned nations during the cold war in the 60s as a bloc that would develop a consensus that would control the internets. that her position is the united states has lost the right to maintain small governance oversight it maintains because of what happened with the nsa and that you certainly appeared in what i read in the international press to have agreed with that position. that this is actually punishment for the nsa misbehaving, not some kind of international step towards global governance and giving some concern is that you
brought into icann in a senior position not in the board but administratively the fellow that shut off the internet in egypt as they were busy trying to tell the world what they were trying to do depose an authoritarian regime and replace it with a democratic government but i would suggest none of this secures in the minds of those of us who through our tax dollars helped pay for the construction of the internet and gave it to the world that freedom of openness, freedom of access, the ideas of freedom of speech that inculcate the u.s. constitution and the values of this country continue to carry the day at icann and continue to make the internet work because without freedom of access and freedom of speech the internet doesn't work, doesn't work for congress or information. >> three questions. let me answer them with a statement. no one has worked harder to make the internet remain open, no one
has built more companies on this panel and in this place than be. my children work in the internet. i work on the internet and full-year as i have raised over $100 million to build a company in this country to support an open internet. i did not say that i am moving to geneva. this is speculation because we opened an office in geneva, we opened an office in many places, in singapore, so people conflate things because they like to but if you confine the statement where i said we are moving to geneva i would like to see it and if i could change the coffee in the cafeteria -- >> will remain in the united states. >> i can't even make that decision. i can't even change the coffee. the board will have to make a decision and board can't make this decision without community agreement and you think the community will agree to move
thousands of contracts that are working marvelously in california to another place? why would we do that? let's stop the speculation. i have no plans to move icann in geneva. we have enough in geneva. that is the end of it. on your second question please acknowledge what brazil did the day i visited him. the day i visited she had made a major speech at the un in which as you said she was proposing the un is the place where she will get back and solve problem. i engaged with the president in a diplomatic discussion and i told him fine, i acknowledge your frustration. what is the solution? how do you solve this issue? quite frankly she looked at me and said i don't know. i said so why did you go to the u.n.? where do you want me to go?
i said you've forged a path forward, why don't you take the leadership? set up a conference based on the stakeholder model that in brazil they have used for many years. she loved it. on the spot she made a decision, she set a conference and that day she tweeted three times the she is now going to support the multistate older approach. that is a huge change in the position that we should welcome from the president of a country like you said that has the ability to build a huge coalition and she did and one important but critical note, she picked 11 countries to join her in the sponsoring of that conference. out of the 11 she picked ten are middle countries, what i call middle economy is, middle countries, germany, france, gonna, and what is the 11th
country? the united states of america. and that is a sign that she was not telling the world walk away from the u.s.. she selected the united states and i am very glad investors responded positively and accepted her and the u.s. is a co-sponsor or a member of that high a level committee running the conference and your third point which is the ones that will get me even more trouble than this is about my colleague who was hired at the same time was almost. he used to be the minister of telecommunications in egypt, a member of the internet society, one that brought more internet to africa single-handedly than anyone at that point. he is the father of the internet in north africa. one day the real story of what
happened when the internet was shut in egypt will come out. but he is much too humble to come out with it. my team has been begging him to speak the story. he is saying it is not my place and i don't want to put myself, pedicel but i will tell you this. because i was very upset when this keeps coming up. he put his life on the line that day, his family's life on the line that day and he slept on the floor of his office for three days when the village was surrounded by people who had escaped the prisons refusing to leave until they allow him to turn it back on. one day we will recognize him as the hero of the open internet. >> with that, heroes of the open internet, i wish we could
continue longer but i promise we have a hard stop at 12:30. please join me in a round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> on monday, the former british defense secretary wrote an op-ed in the wall street journal calling the ed snowden leaks treason. at the american enterprise institute discusses whether america's intelligence agencies had infringed on the personal privacy of u.s. citizens. you can see it live at 10:00 eastern on c-span. tonight booktv in prime-time features books focusing on navy
seals. at 8:00 p.m. like woodland on his book training k-9 warriors looking at the dogs to serve with the seals. bent johnny walker discusses codename johnnie walker, the extraordinary story of the iraqi who risks everything to fight with u.s. navy seals. and the author of ice on target, stories of the brotherhood of u.s. navy seals. booktv in prime time all this time at 8:00 p.m.. >> a plant scientist as well as interest in the other sciences and the story is that he knew it didn't freeze in fort myers so lot of the interest he had in this area were based on his love of plants. by the 1920s united states was relying on foreign rubber and we are heading into war but at that
point is a decided the plant material and processes should be done in this country. edison, ford and firestone or collecting plants and had hundreds or thousands of people all over this country collecting plants and sending them to fort myers to his laboratory to find a source of plant material that could produce rubber efficiently, commercially, so the laboratory was put here for that reason because they can grow the plants on site and do the preliminary research, it was exciting project. this is interesting for many reasons. at that point and american history there was no process for plants, a chemicals, parenting, so part of the reasons this was so important was it caused the u.s. government to come forward with what was called u.s. patent
law which meant you invented something with plants and was a process worthy of patenting it was issued a patent. >> booktv and american history tv take a look at the history and literary life of fort myers, fla. including edison botanical research laboratory at noon eastern, and sunday at 2:00 with c-span3. >> for reagan adviser suzanne massey spoke about the history of u.s./russia relations and how the american media is reporting on events in ukraine. this was part of any event hosted by the center and global interest. it is just over an hour. >> welcome, i am president of
the central global interests. i am glad to see all of you here. we have to say a meeting to talk about what to do in the current situation where we are obviously kind of moving forward in a new cold war or at least very serious potentially conflict between the west and russia. it is like we're back in old times in many ways. some people say, some experts say this new cold war could be much more serious because we don't have ideological differences any more.
russia is a capitalistic country, free-market, whatever. it is not communism so it is not a battle between communism and capitalism as we used to say. a cold war between two very different social political systems and that makes the situation more dangerous because we have much deeper, more serious disagreements between russia and the soviet union may be it is something geopolitical disagreements, how we view the world, the new world order, we cannot even start to think about what to do. we have very few good examples of how we managed to solve our systematic conflicts and the cold war was one of the best examples of how to manage our
disagreements. i am not going to give you a lesson on history but today, we have someone to tell us how we can learn any lessons from that period, how would, let's say, ronald reagan handle the situation. i see comments like ronald reagan would be like -- very different. i don't know if it is true or not. we will find this out today. i don't like the situation now and is getting more and more dangerous around ukraine and not just around ukraine. is much more serious, a deep misunderstanding between russia and united states. i have been in moscow week ago and i heard from everybody the united states doesn't want to hear russian watch it. they don't understand what we want.
they don't understand. i am coming here and hearing the same argument, russia doesn't want to hear the west, what the west wants. two sides don't hear each other. i think after all this history of the 20th century russia and the united states to not understand each other on a very basic serious deep level, there is no understanding. lot of misconceptions, stereotypes and political disagreements coming from this deep misunderstandings and the best person who can explain to us why we have this misunderstanding, how we can overcome all of this, suzanne massey, personal adviser, this is your book, by the way, i recommend everybody to buy it and to read this book. is a deep, serious analysis of
the situation. i think mchale gorbachev said it, he did not expect reagan to be so -- such a man of action. that is basically -- the key how to view relations. we can't verify, don't want to verify. so you know in literature throughout the cold war, should tell us i hope how to prevent a new cold war, what we can do, why we don't understand russia. i asked to give little comments,
y united states is so withdrawn. why are american policy is always wrong and russian policies by america but that is not all. but this side is always wrong. i live in russia for quarter century. every time i go to a meeting. i did not expect it from boris yeltsin. it surprised us, work to do. i hear the same message all over again and again, what to do with russia. what to do. tell us. 20 minutes, feel free, there will be time for questions and answers but as informal as possible. very nice informal -- adviser to ronald reagan but informal, nice
lady, i used to know very well jim kirkpatrick, my close friend who will tell you what about ronald reagan and the administration, two keep women on russian foreign policy, soviet union, they see it. so here is wisdom from that time. >> thank you so much. when you were talking you lead into something. i wasn't going to start this way but i think i have to because i asked this question. i have talked and this is what i have come up with. that is that russia, this is the first quote in my book, if countries have genders and russia is a woman. this explains her capriciousness, her emotion comments and her fertility.
anything with her own particular way to astonishing results. if so, then of course the man in her life is america. after all, right now i see it as an older woman who happens to have had a tumultuous background and because that tumultuous background has developed in her of course he wariness, suspicion, and even fear. the man in her life happens to be a younger man, quite much younger friend doesn't have a long background and like all young men he occasionally is insensitive to her, can't understand why she feels so badly. this young man also likes to flex his muscles sometimes. so it is not unusual that the
two should find great difficulty to find a common conversation and the more i look at it the more i see this and i have dealt with russia long time. i of russia and i think i of russia for the right things. not because everybody in the world has a defense. i know the bad side of russia as well but they have some things that i think would be very useful for us but not things we generally value in the united states because we are so different. one of those things is russians are more emotional in many ways, react that way and deeply. americans consider emotional bad word. think of the english. she behaved emotionally. he made an emotional decision. in russian is a good word. there is one to start with. so we have to deal with these
things. it is sad. it would be as the russian if proverb, very sad, funny if it were true, sad. in 2001 i made a speech at the world council washington, why are we always wrong about russia? i gave it again in 2005 ask my alma mater and gave it again at the university of mellon and but but those always remained the same, the more recent crisis, now it is, it is that. i wanted to start with -- a great deal of importance knowing history, not political science. a great scientist klaus great friends with my husband's, always used to say anything that calls itself science isn't. i think history is absolutely
vital especially in this case. russians are very proud of their loan history. they should be. they have also gone through a great deal because of their long history. it has taught them about suffering. i could tell you how do you explain suffering to a people who have not suffered? that is a challenge. that is a challenge. those are some of the things. i will give you the emotional side of things, not the political side. i have been working and going to russia since 1968. i was very lucky. i cannot tell you how lucky i was during that period. i am a private citizen, absolutely private citizen. i thought to know many many russians. i was the first foreigners they had ever seen. i began to share their lives.
i began to see how difficult it was myself. so i began to see how different and how many misunderstandings there were, basic misunderstandings in this country about for russia. stalin was one thing but russia is not a new country. it is not stalin. is not actually totalitarian country no matter how president putin is criticized, he is maybe authoritarian, i am not judging anything, i am just saying that i happen to know president to know little bit and i can tell you right now that this table he does not each may bes. he is a man of fought usually. so i go back to history. history is a russian proverb, ignore history you lose an eye.
forget history you lose two eyes. i think that we in the united states have consistently ignored russian history and its effects and this is more evident absolutely today in this crisis because for close to a century successive american administrations have been dominated by basic premises about russia that were based on selective and often narrowly focused views that have led to a succession of wrong assessments and wrong policies and this has been true whether these policies came from the right or from the left. and strangely, despite increased communication and contact, this process was most particularly marked during the 20th century and now into the 21st but one
can say we have often been almost as mistaken about russia as europeans were in the sixteenth century when it was confidently believed that russia -- russians were shipped an image of a great golden goddess. i am not going to go into this for a long talk but you have to start at the beginning of the 20th century and if you go through this you will see that one way or another we were always wrong in interpreting russia weather we thought uncle joe was just great and followed him or if we thought gaddafi was just great and absolutely right. we continue this one way or another to do it. in this talk, it is as i told you, unfortunately russia cannot be explained in 25 words or less. everything about russia is long.
long history, long church services, long names, it does take a little time. i am not going to take your time today explaining one administration or the other, if you can't find it out yourself. it is not secret. so that is one thing. now, we will go on to what can we do. that is all so very long, i know. but i see of course where i was very sad and am sad about this because i have always believed since the very beginning that russia and the united states belong together. if men and women are complementary russia and the united states are complementary. and if we could find some common language, we did find some. up there in space, a russian and
american are circling us even as we speak in an american space ship and a russian rocket. we haven't heard a lot about them having a big fight in very close quarters. the other thing where we really understand each other is music. russians love our music and we love there's. in fact i can tell you all over the united states except alaska and hawaii, many americans because the nutcracker has become as much an american custom as santa claus many americans really think tchaikovsky is american. i have been confronted with that quite often with all those hockey players, why should tchaikovsky be american but that is how some things have been